Let's backtrack. I said the scale of these 'mass' shootings matters, at least in regards to our ability to do anything about them. You said

"Are you willing to apply that same argument to idea of automatic and semi-automatic weapons?"

And I said that's already part of the equation. Meaning we already do apply that argument to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Semis are generally legal and widely-owned. Fully-autos are heavily restricted and not at all widely owned (by the general public)

....and you missed my point. I was asking if you're willing to discuss semi-automatic restrictions based on your "scale matters" argument for having guns in classrooms.

Acworth:
There were 5,453 housing units at an average density of 770.7 per square mile (297.4/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 79.7% White, 12.6% African American, 0.2% Native American, 2.3% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 3.2% from other races, and 2.00% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.05% of the population.

Kennesaw:
The racial makeup of the city was 64.2% White, 22.3% Black, 0.4% Native American, 5.3% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 4.7% from other races, and 3.0% two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 10.8% of the population.

I would argue that 15% fewer whites and 10% more blacks is not the same demographically.

You can argue that all you want, but I didn't live there in 2000. Times change, and so do demographics.

....and you missed my point. I was asking if you're willing to discuss semi-automatic restrictions based on your "scale matters" argument for having guns in classrooms.

Discuss anything you want, I've already laid out my rule-of-thumb standard. If the average cop on the street is allowed to carry a certain weapon, the public should be allowed as well. I think that's about the right amount of balance.

Discuss anything you want, I've already laid out my rule-of-thumb standard. If the average cop on the street is allowed to carry a certain weapon, the public should be allowed as well. I think that's about the right amount of balance.

So then we're in agreement that there is no need for 30-, 60-, 100-round magazines and assault rifles.

So you're saying passing laws that say don't do X don't prevent people from doing X.

Let's just not pass any laws?

Do you really believe that the emphasis on DUIs has had no effect on the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest again to try proving a point?

Side note, the article you posted makes a great case for federal regulation of business.

My feelings on DUI laws are pretty parallel to restrictions on guns. There's a floor of common sense somewhere, but every time something bad happens some political activist(s) somewhere has to build off of that floor in order to "do something" so everyone so-inclined can feel better. The floor of DUI laws (and real punishments) as established over the 1980's -90's or so was probably a good thing. But now what we're faced with is a steady push to lower those limits every time enough bad happens to stir emotions. Anti-drinking advocates are now talking about criminalizing .05% even though there's little to no evidence that level of "intoxication" is causing any real harm. It doesn't matter to them if the vast majority of truly alcohol-related tragedies were caused by people violating already-existing limits. They've got to "do something." And that something tends to be whatever's easiest, which means lowering limits to include mostly people who were never the problem in the first place.

And I believe what we likely will see come out of this tragedy (if anything) will be something that would've had next to no impact on the case at hand. Unfortunately it's all just an exercise certain people need to go through in order to give themselves the false hope that the inevitable isn't going to happen again.

Again with my endless analogies...if YOU were a burglar: You had a choice of 2 houses to rob, and you were going to rob 1 of them. House #1 you know has guns, and house #2 you know does not. Which do you rob?
Rhetorical.

And again with my endless facts and statistics. I even provided the bibliography for you.

Quote:

"Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries [Kopel D. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books; 1992.] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot. [Kleck G. Crime control through private use of armed forces. Soc Probl. 1988;35:121,Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Hawthrone, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates, [Mayhew P, van Dijk J. Criminal Victimization in Eleven Industrialized Countries: Key Findings From the International Crime Victimization Surveys. London, UK: Information and Publications Group; 1997.] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates. [Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006. ] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less. [Duggan M. More guns more crime. J Polit Econ. 2001;109:10861114,Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns and burglary. In: Ludwig J, Cook P, eds. Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 2003:74107.] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot for burglars, and burglars may target houses with many guns."

Just out of curiosity...do you have a college degree? Do you know what the difference is between peer-reviewed scientific research and a Wikipedia article is? Bonus question: Is Nate Silver a witch and the Anti-Christ?

Well Steven we probably would if our nation wasn't 16 trillion in debt and most states weren't broke. Instead we are shipping billions upon billions to the middle east. *shrug*

I agree that we should shift a billion to protect our children at home but we don't.

As far as wanting more police though Steven they can't be everywhere. If I'm not mistaken you live in the chicago area and if so you don't even have the right to own a gun? At the end of the day as my dad says "We are all captains of our own ship". We can rely on others to protect us or you have to just do it yourself. Steven ask yourself this. If someone forces themselves into your home to harm your family would you rather have a loaded gun ready for them or not? I sure as hell would and do. Go Ahead. Make my day.

Why wouldn't you want that security for you children at school?

I live in the suburbs, we are allowed to own guns, I don't think we can carry concealed weapons but not wanting one I never checked it out. My dad is big into guns he has a whole bunch of shotguns and rifles and a pistol that is more for quick draw type stuff.

Way back about 25 years ago he bought me a shotgun for Christmas and I was like what am I going to do with this but I figured I would give hunting a try. We went out shooting birds downstate once, it was kinda fun shooting things but late in the day I was following a flock and pulled off a round just as my uncle moved over into our blind and I am surprised to this day I didn't blow his head off. Maybe if we didn't waste what we killed and I didn't nearly kill my uncle I would have a different take on guns. As far as I am concerned they are made for one purpose and that is to take life. My dad still has my shotgun at his house, I won't allow it nor any kind of gun in my house.

I read our local paper and review the police reports and we don't get night time robberies. I feel safe in my home. I can't sleep most nights so there is usually some activity in the house almost all hours, We have motion sensing lights, keep the bushes around the house cut low leave a light on downstairs and make it generally less appealing for someone to break in. If some one did break in I wouldn't have the time to get a locked gun and load it, I feel better calling the police and knowing they are on their way than having a gun in my house. One would have to sleep with an unlocked loaded gun to have a chance at using it in an event like that. Plus if they did break in with my neck I wouldn't be able to aim and handle the recoil so all I would do is piss off the intruder and likely die because he killed me with my own weapon. Plus the couple times I have been rearended in my car the stress of the event was so shocking I was stunned and couldn't believe it was really happening. I doubt faced with an armed intruder hell bent on hurting me and my family I would be able to do more than call 911. I know everyone likes to think they could react under fire but without practicing and training for a home break in until it was second nature I wouldn't be able to do more than call 911.

My other piece of home protection is our dog, I really feel that if any door was opened he would bark and give us time to call the police and let them handle the intruder. I have gone out the front door late at nights with everyone else asleep and the dog sleeping upstairs has gone crazy when he heard the door open, and I thought I was as quiet as I cool be. Just my roaming around downstairs at night will set off a growl and he will come out and check on me.

My Brother in law has guns they live in the area, he keeps a bat by his bed because his guns are locked up in a safe in the basement. He knows if someone broke in he wouldn't have time to get to them and he doesn't want to keep an unlocked gun around his kids, he told me he would rather be beaten with his own bat than killed with his own gun.

I think raising my kids in a gun free environment is better for them in the long term. Talking to them about how to react to different scenarios and having plans for different events is more important to me than packing heat.

I think it would actually provide more jobs to add more police, and while they can't be everywhere (which is not the point) they would be more visible and quicker to respond which saves more lives. If you leave public places like banks and malls and even schools unpoliced we as a society are making it too easy for nut jobs and criminals to plan attacks and pull off robberies.

You like to bring up the gun violence in Chicago but the fact is most of it is in gang riddled areas where there is little to no patrols being done. Emanual moves cops around from one blighted area to another rather than expand the force to provide the the levels of enforcement that is truly needed, and most of that is because lack of funding. Do taxes suck? Yes, can someone making $100k pay more than someone making $30k **** yes. If you want to live in a country where you have a modicum of safety, infrastructure, schooling, public works, and quality of life then you have to expect to pay for those things. Too many people are too concerned about how much money they can make, protecting their wealth, and what they get out of life rather than worry about how they can make things better for the communities they and their familes live in.

Giving me a gun and telling me to protect mine is not the answer, we need to find a way to protect what is OURs.

it's really up to the individual to say whether or not a gun makes him/her safer. It's not up to another person or the govt IMO. When things cool down and the fight over guns starts that will be the big issue once again. Should the govt protect us, or do we have a right to protect ourselves, property, family when they fail to do so.

And again with my endless facts and statistics. I even provided the bibliography for you.

"Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries [Kopel D. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books; 1992.] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot. [Kleck G. Crime control through private use of armed forces. Soc Probl. 1988;35:121,Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Hawthrone, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates, [Mayhew P, van Dijk J. Criminal Victimization in Eleven Industrialized Countries: Key Findings From the International Crime Victimization Surveys. London, UK: Information and Publications Group; 1997.] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates. [Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006. ] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less. [Duggan M. More guns more crime. J Polit Econ. 2001;109:10861114,Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns and burglary. In: Ludwig J, Cook P, eds. Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 2003:74107.] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot for burglars, and burglars may target houses with many guns."

Just out of curiosity...do you have a college degree? Do you know what the difference is between peer-reviewed scientific research and a Wikipedia article is? Bonus question: Is Nate Silver a witch and the Anti-Christ?

So burglars prefer houses with gun owners, and even more, they prefer houses with gun owners when the gun owners are home?

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life.
Enjoy reading away on your research papers. They are obviously giving you wonderful information.

You cite research paper quotes, again, as fact. This is one of the most widely debated topics in the US and the world. You can read different sides, opinions, research papers, go hear lectures, etc to your heart's content. I do not doubt that some dude from Harvard wrote what you posted. What I doubt is that you or your professor can take a bunch of statistical facts, correlate and rearrange them in a manner of your choosing, and produce the answers to gun control. It is not cut and dry, and if it was, no one would debate the issue.

Broncosteven sounds like you got a shotgun, then went right out hunting before you were really ready to.

I shot my dad's guns as a kid, he taught me how to shoot and gun safety from a young age but never thought it was cool, my heart wasn't in it. Before we went hunting we went to ranges a couple times, I did a gun safety and cleaning class on my own, and shot targets out at my a couple different family farms. The guy running the farm gave us a safety talk but I wasn't expecting my uncle who always talked about being this big hunter came out of no where and jumped in with us from the side. I was doing everything I was taught to and it was a mistake on my uncles part that nearly cost him his life.

Having that experience showed me that with a gun you can do everything you can to be safe with it but something you don't account for can cost someone their life.

I don't think I will ever be ready to hunt, it is not my thing. I would rather spend the time making something than killing something.

It was in a different thread awhile back. And only people who don't understand the true intention of the 2nd Amendment (or I guess don't care about it) would think it moronic.

It's good to know that you know what the "true intention" of the 2nd Amendment was.

You're insinuating that the 2nd Amendment was made so that people could overthrow their government. I say that is a silly argument because a new government would not put a provision in it to allow its people to overthrow it. The Civil War showed that the US never had any intention of allowing its citizens to do so.

Rather, if you have any understanding of military history, the specific wording of the Amendment is important:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Militias were the primary form of home defense back in the day. They were well-regulated. They trained to protect citizens from incursions from Native American tribes, and in the case of the Revolutionary War, invasions from foreign countries. Even during the Civil War, regulated militias played a huge part in the armies of both sides, and during time of war were put under command of the US Army. Think of these militias as the National Guard of their time.

In my experience, pro-gun people are always quick to quote the second half of the Amendment, but always seem to forget the first half.

Context.

Additionally, we passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, allowing black men to vote. Then the 19th Amendment 50 years later, allowing women to vote. This shows that, yes, we can revisit Amendments that have outlived their usefulness. The argument can be made as well that the framers of the Constitution could not have had any clue to the technological advances that would eventually take place with regard to gun manufacturing...hell, even using the word "manufacturing" as relates to guns in the 18th Century is a big-ass stretch.

That conservative fishwrap the New York Post said it pretty well the other day:

"Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?

That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?

If a deranged drug-upped killer comes in to your kid's school, which classroom would you want him to be in:

the one with the teacher who will teach them to curl into a little ball and hide, hoping to avoid notice?

the one where the teacher will have them out of the way, while being ready with his/her own firearm, with which they are trained?

The liberal attitude on gun control contributed to deaths at Sandy Hook. An armed teacher, screened and trained properly, could have saved lives.

All you panty-waste libs can start crying now.

I have never worked in a district that allowed teachers to carry when I was Texas, though a few do, but I did have the code to the SRO's gun safe which contained several AR-15s. The SROs took the time to show me how to use them if things ever came to that. Ofcourse it never did, but there are work-a-rounds to provide some level of access for school administrators.

The district I know of that allows teachers to carry requires a concealed weapons permit plus additional training and individual approval from the supt and school board. Only the supt and board know who the armed teachers are. It's a district NE of Dallas.

I live in the suburbs, we are allowed to own guns, I don't think we can carry concealed weapons but not wanting one I never checked it out. My dad is big into guns he has a whole bunch of shotguns and rifles and a pistol that is more for quick draw type stuff.

Way back about 25 years ago he bought me a shotgun for Christmas and I was like what am I going to do with this but I figured I would give hunting a try. We went out shooting birds downstate once, it was kinda fun shooting things but late in the day I was following a flock and pulled off a round just as my uncle moved over into our blind and I am surprised to this day I didn't blow his head off. Maybe if we didn't waste what we killed and I didn't nearly kill my uncle I would have a different take on guns. As far as I am concerned they are made for one purpose and that is to take life. My dad still has my shotgun at his house, I won't allow it nor any kind of gun in my house.

I read our local paper and review the police reports and we don't get night time robberies. I feel safe in my home. I can't sleep most nights so there is usually some activity in the house almost all hours, We have motion sensing lights, keep the bushes around the house cut low leave a light on downstairs and make it generally less appealing for someone to break in. If some one did break in I wouldn't have the time to get a locked gun and load it, I feel better calling the police and knowing they are on their way than having a gun in my house. One would have to sleep with an unlocked loaded gun to have a chance at using it in an event like that. Plus if they did break in with my neck I wouldn't be able to aim and handle the recoil so all I would do is piss off the intruder and likely die because he killed me with my own weapon. Plus the couple times I have been rearended in my car the stress of the event was so shocking I was stunned and couldn't believe it was really happening. I doubt faced with an armed intruder hell bent on hurting me and my family I would be able to do more than call 911. I know everyone likes to think they could react under fire but without practicing and training for a home break in until it was second nature I wouldn't be able to do more than call 911.

My other piece of home protection is our dog, I really feel that if any door was opened he would bark and give us time to call the police and let them handle the intruder. I have gone out the front door late at nights with everyone else asleep and the dog sleeping upstairs has gone crazy when he heard the door open, and I thought I was as quiet as I cool be. Just my roaming around downstairs at night will set off a growl and he will come out and check on me.

My Brother in law has guns they live in the area, he keeps a bat by his bed because his guns are locked up in a safe in the basement. He knows if someone broke in he wouldn't have time to get to them and he doesn't want to keep an unlocked gun around his kids, he told me he would rather be beaten with his own bat than killed with his own gun.

I think raising my kids in a gun free environment is better for them in the long term. Talking to them about how to react to different scenarios and having plans for different events is more important to me than packing heat.

I think it would actually provide more jobs to add more police, and while they can't be everywhere (which is not the point) they would be more visible and quicker to respond which saves more lives. If you leave public places like banks and malls and even schools unpoliced we as a society are making it too easy for nut jobs and criminals to plan attacks and pull off robberies.

You like to bring up the gun violence in Chicago but the fact is most of it is in gang riddled areas where there is little to no patrols being done. Emanual moves cops around from one blighted area to another rather than expand the force to provide the the levels of enforcement that is truly needed, and most of that is because lack of funding. Do taxes suck? Yes, can someone making $100k pay more than someone making $30k **** yes. If you want to live in a country where you have a modicum of safety, infrastructure, schooling, public works, and quality of life then you have to expect to pay for those things. Too many people are too concerned about how much money they can make, protecting their wealth, and what they get out of life rather than worry about how they can make things better for the communities they and their familes live in.

Giving me a gun and telling me to protect mine is not the answer, we need to find a way to protect what is OURs.

Good post and, while it is not mine, I don't mind your stance.
I would prefer to keep the police force low, taxes low, and I'll take care of myself.

I live in a good community. There is very low crime in the area and we also feel safe.
I do own numerous guns, but like your dad, they are currently useless to me in an invasion and locked up in the basement, away from my kids. Prior to my kids, I kept a loaded handgun within reach in the bedroom.

I will soon buy a fingerprint opened safe, so I again can keep the handgun in the bedroom, loaded, within reach. I would like to eventually have another on the 1st floor. Given my community is generally safe, keeping my kids safe from my guns is priority #1, and protecting them is priority #2.

I can't get a carry license in NJ, but I would if I could. In my life, had I had one, I admit I would never have had a reason to even remove it from the holster. That said, the thought of being in a situation where I could not actively protect my wife or children is sickening enough that I would certainly carry if I could. Dialing 911 is just not an acceptable option to me

So burglars prefer houses with gun owners, and even more, they prefer houses with gun owners when the gun owners are home?

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life.
Enjoy reading away on your research papers. They are obviously giving you wonderful information.

You cite research paper quotes, again, as fact. This is one of the most widely debated topics in the US and the world. You can read different sides, opinions, research papers, go hear lectures, etc to your heart's content. I do not doubt that some dude from Harvard wrote what you posted. What I doubt is that you or your professor can take a bunch of statistical facts, correlate and rearrange them in a manner of your choosing, and produce the answers to gun control. It is not cut and dry, and if it was, no one would debate the issue.

Statistically speaking, burglars rob more houses with gun owners than without. It doesn't mean they prefer to rob gun owners. It means that there is no evidence to support the claim that having a gun in the house does anything to prevent burglaries on said house. There is a big difference between those two stances, and the latter disproves the theory that since I have a gun in my house, I am less likely to be robbed.

Furthermore, research shows that households that have guns are much more likely to have gun accidents. So not only are you really not protecting yourself or your family, you're actually putting them in more danger.

That was the point of the paper.

I'm not going to belabor this point any more, because it's obvious that you do not have it in you to debate honestly. You're just claiming that (for the millionth time) a peer-reviewed article published by a medical professional is bunk because you think so.

It's clear to me that you have no background in research methodology, otherwise you wouldn't be so afraid of facts and figures published and reviewed by people with far greater knowledge of a subject.

I have never worked at district that allowed teacher to carry when I was Texas, though a few do, but I did have the code to the SRO's gun safe which contained several AR-15s. The SROs took the time to show me how to use them if things ever came to that. Ofcourse it never did, but there are work-a-rounds to provide some level of access for school administrators.

It is sad to think a job requirement for an already under paid teaching job would be commando experience. I just don't see my daughters 50 something teacher firing off rounds Rambo style.

I would much rather have increased patrols and lower response times by those sworn and trained to protect, not just in schools but all public areas.

Good post and, while it is not mine, I don't mind your stance. I would prefer to keep the police force low, taxes low, and I'll take care of myself.

I live in a good community. There is very low crime in the area and we also feel safe.
I do own numerous guns, but like your dad, they are currently useless to me in an invasion and locked up in the basement, away from my kids. Prior to my kids, I kept a loaded handgun within reach in the bedroom.

I will soon buy a fingerprint opened safe, so I again can keep the handgun in the bedroom, loaded, within reach. I would like to eventually have another on the 1st floor. Given my community is generally safe, keeping my kids safe from my guns is priority #1, and protecting them is priority #2.

I can't get a carry license in NJ, but I would if I could. In my life, had I had one, I admit I would never have had a reason to even remove it from the holster. That said, the thought of being in a situation where I could not actively protect my wife or children is sickening enough that I would certainly carry if I could. Dialing 911 is just not an acceptable option to me

I agree, I can respect your stance, the bold may work for you but what about your neighbors or community? Are they willing and able to protect theirs?

Do you trust your neighbors and community to take the measures you are willing to in order to keep their guns safe?

I would prefer to have a trained professional doing their job over hoping my neighbors are doing the same or better job securing their weapons.